@Paul Wolf "Germans need to fix those gas pipelines blown up by their so-called allies." That's never going to happen. The EU is heading for de-industrialization and probably resemble the 19th century
Just another 10 years...(been hearing that for a few decades) I remember reading a Popular Mechanics magazine when I was in high school in the 90s that said we were very close to a working reactor, just like how close we were to making life in a lab, or building a moon base...the money never stops, but the results never change...
@@allhopeabandon7831 And at the same time the maths department was screaming all the time: "Those underlying equations can't be tamed! We have actual proof for that!".
Lol. The recent news of fusion energy gain was a fundraiser too. The Department of Energy had a panel of the scientists in involved. They spoke about the experiment took questions. Lots of double talk about how great the experiment was. (You need an untold millions or billion dollar machine, held behind top secret national defense wall, to replicate the results.) And that the breakthrough will pave the future of fusion, but that the results are years away from having an actual commerical power plant. Because you need a 500 trillion Watt laser, that is basically used to make better nukes. As the fusion experiment only uses 10% of machine's operating budget. It was a side job. And who knows if it was created with the understanding the program was going to be cut, because we already have more nukes than we need.
The world is based on lies. Vedic texts knew all we needed to know. Thousands of years ago. Donald Hoffman has a video explaining how we hallucinate our reality. Survival drives evolution not truth hence your and mine dilemma. The answer is meditation
It is the same with climate science. Although the science is "settled", billions and billions of funding are out into it. You can not ask any questions. And yet every year, the IPCC selectively publishes vetted research in evermore catastrophic reports.
The collider method is violence. Please keep that in mind. Its brute force isn’t exactly taking atomic nucleus apart, but more like smashing or shooting it into pieces. Therefore, its results will likely be fragments of elementary particles rather than the elementary particles themselves. At least, it is inaccurate or even dishonest, unintentionally, of course, whether the they are talking about reality or their wishful thinking, a dream, or lying unconsciously, such as sleepwalking.
I'm really liking this trend of physics coming to youtube, following you right now, the work of Sabine woke me up of a lot of stuff is happening in the field.
There has been a trend recently for naming publicly funded projects and infrastructure by online polling. If this is the case with the new collider I'm going to resist the urge to suggest 'Collidie McCollideface, and go instead with 'ADG' (Ambiguous Data Generator).
They talk in that weird way politicians do, where they just skirt around an answer instead of actually giving one. It seems odd to me for scientists to be discussing things with language like this
Large expensive projects which involve inscrutable financing are, quite understandably the only things politicians are comfortable funding. We need more such projects, the more the better … because the only other thing which lines the right pockets with any comparable efficiency is … good old War.
It's just money! But it's sinister that something like a huge potlatch is achieved by the largest detour through theoretical science. Scientific progress went along very well with the two world wars and the atomic bomb, but this comedy has all the signs of a scientific self-dismissal. Or is it just that the language of science has to serve all needs.
You have acquired a new subscriber👍 . One that was happy for building the LHC. But now there are way more important science projects to build at present. ❤
it's like the military industrial complex in America--the establishment ends the careers of critics so that those who make money off the system can continue to do so.
Isn't MIC at least a bit more rigorous and grounded in reality as even lay people notice whether superior firepower was actually achieved? If you want some American analogies, I'd rather look towards some pathologies in soft science that do metastasize towards more rigorous fields.
I like both you and Sabine Hossenfelder for your knowledge, information and opinions that you've shared online and especially for your truthfulness in calling out the BS you've seen in physics.
Sabine is awesome. She just made a video about how it’s slightly possible the particle accelerators could open a blackhole on earth but in he usual joking manner. I always had a problem with the accelerator or ers since there’s already more than one since they began building the latest. Some of the claims didn’t seem to be coming from actual physicist, like when on one hand the particles were said to be colliding at the speed of light and on the other side it’s stated the particles travel at the speed of light which would mean the impacts force is liken more to twice or near the speed of light just like 2 cars traveling at 50 KPH or MPH the impact is measured at 100 KPH or MPH. Presently I feel the same or hear results could be observed in the same manner using the same methods being procured presently in fusion reactor development, create a dab of particles in a deep vacuum at near sub zero temps on a nano scale concentrated upon a micro pinpoint heavily coated with a form of high strength material to encapsulate and preserve the sample , even in the same manner artificial diamonds are made or even an epoxy base and shoot high energy lasers at it in a containment surrounded by sensors for review. , it that works then tens of thousands of experiments using multiple forms of particles could get performed in less time then what the hadron collider is capable of. 🤷♂️ ask a physicist 😁
@@rebellion-starwars It's not about comparing them, it's about the qualities that they share and which I like, mainly that they're both smart and honest about physics.
Modern Physics is a new priesthood. Rather than counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin in Ancient Latin. We now have quantum particles in indecipherable maths. Instead of stain glass windows, we now have the Webb images of the universe, and colliders rather than Cathedrals. I'm already a huge Sabine fan. Subscribed.
@@florincoter1988 My degree is in physics and OP is right. Science has become a sort of deified religion. There is huge issues underlying a lot of physics, and science in general. Sun Scholar is a great channel; he points out the outdated notions of cosmology and astronomy that we still use only because those models were created 100 years ago and continuously built upon, so to start with something fresh and better always requires a paradigm shift. For instance, the claim that stars are gaseous bodies is almost nonsensical; how can gas collapse? The gas density they claim that collapse into stars is literally what we would call a vacuum on Earth. Stars are liquid, and their surface reflects that. You can see ripples, just like when a rock is thrown in a pond. Modern astronomers explain this away as an 'illusion' of which is caused by super complicated gaseous interactions. Occam's razor comes to mind I could go on and on and on, and I have direct access to a lot of stuff at university, since my major was in physics and my ultimate goal is getting a PhD in theoretical physics. LIGO is another joke; they aren't measuring what they think they are; the 'black hole' images are most jokes; no one can replicate their experiment, and when you read the methodology, you realize literally any image could've been extracted from the data they had. But they know the 'end goal' of what they want and adjust the mathematical coefficients until the desired image comes out. That is what is going on in a lot of fields; just straight up fudging data or being really sly with it. This is why meta studies show that over 50% of all published scientific papers cannot be replicated, yet are taken as fact. THAT IS HUGE
The Yellow. Sabines were witches. The nazis called the ancient Saxon Wivern (a symbol used by a Division of the British Territorial Army in WWII) the yellow devil.
ITER is another project which cannot possibly succeed at anything except a design for a reactor which can be built in about 8 locations in the world, and in order to produce the most expensive electricity of all time. No. ITER will produce a stack of PhDs taller than the reactor building, but no viable reactor can ever come from it. It's interesting science, but its main job is to justify the massive salaries of a huge number of people from a lot of countries.
So, the only question I have is what do YOU suggest to do? Should we all abandon our hopes to improve the models of hadronic interactions, hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions? Should we all get fired and start making videos for youtube? Should we cancel our hopes to reach the center-of-mass energy in collider experiments equivalent to highest energies of cosmic rays, so the problem like muon puzzle will never be solved completely? No QGP studies at higher energies to get the clear signals of it formation, to study the higher PT region? No search for deviation of rare decays branching? Leave everything as it is with current models not being able to describe inclusively all processes that happen at high energies? What I see in examples you have shown, is the struggle to provide the simple explanations of the problems that are studied now. And yes, the stars couldn’t shine with different electron mass, and yes, it is both good to see whether the standard model make a correct prediction or we observe something that directly contradicts it. It is easy to criticize, but it would be much better to see the proper suggestions and solutions.
@@lkytmryan Oh yeah? So that’s why it is better to leave thousands of brilliant minds without jobs and that’s why Europe is wasting billions in bs like global warming fight with “climate lockdown” and “clean energy” and sending useless military equipment for a proxy war in Ukraine?
@@РоманНиколаенко-ъ9й Europe has a the largest collider in the world and they are still wasting billions on climate change so I don't know what you are talkin about. Those 1000s of brilliant minds can surely figure out some way to make money, otherwise, how brilliant could they possibly be?
@@lkytmryan Of course they can figure it out. The question is, is it better for them to waste their potential in doing useless money earning, like making youtube videos, or try to achieve our goals? If it is okay to waste money in something non-scientific, why not to “waste” it to science?
This kind of hubris is exactly why I pivoted from a degree in physics to a PhD in photovoltaics. At least what I'm working on now will have some consequence to the world.
and i, after a ph.d. in theoretical physics (not particle physics, but some arcana of filed theory) simply settled to teaching and appreciating undergraduate level physics....
My PhD is theoretical physics. I will be the one to usher in the paradigm shift, as well as other great people in this field. Gone will be the days of oafish quantum ways
I majored in Physics as an undergrad, inspired by popular physics works like Hawking's and Brian Greene's books. You've articulated a lot of the doubts I had in school which caused me to eventually burn out and focus on pure mathematics.
TBH, whole video is like an misinterpretation of words as you want. When they say that higgs was observed in rare decay they 100% correct, because higgs branching ratio to 2gamma decay is 0.2%. It's not dirty channel, because "every particle" don't decay into a pair of 60GeV photons.
You are confirming what I said. According to your definition, every channel today is rare, because the "frequent" decays have already been seen in past experiments. You should let sink in the absurdity to consider a 2 photon decay however.
@@TheMachian No. Rare means in comparison with other decay channels of a GIVEN particle. You can say if channel rare or not if you already observed particle and know it total decay width. What absurdity of 2 gamma decay do you mean? 2gamma is easiest thing to observe on LHC because of low background.
Man you almost gave me the creeps! I'm also a physicist and struggle every day to understand this nonsense! Thanks God I'm not alone anymore! Now back to real physics! Thank you so much!
Yeah, the entire consensus of the field says the opposite of what this dude thinks. Along with the the same following of barely educated, obviously mentally ill followers saying "OMG THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO EVER YOU ARE THE BEST FAKE PHYSICIST EVER MAN!"
Gratitude for your argument and the comments, as these defend the skepticists among us, non-physicists. Unfortunately, non-physicists are essentially muted against "recognized scientific boards", and can raise no voice of objection, if the rest of the Physics community remains idle, in view of "ground-breaking scientific advances". Some do suspect that data science has over-aided scientific validation.
The title is so appropriate. These particle physicists are so much up themselves - how many of them at CERN? Over 2000 - don't worry about the poor, the hungry or homeless lets spend another 10 or 15 billion on a collider.
@@psyborg06 Very good logic. You don't spend 15 billion on a weird project and at the same time have poverty and homlessness. But don't worry about an equitable and well adjusted society - lets spend 15billion at Cern so 2000 employees can get excited about more powerful magnets.
@@IrfanAli-qp1gm What world do you live in, it happens all the time and at scales that make CERN look like pennies. That is my point, which you have missed.
That is a rather bullshit argument to make if you look at defense spending, which is orders of magnitude more. Elon musk paid roughly 4 times the cost of the LHC to buy Twitter!, and is now trying to convince the Tesla shareholders that he deserves roughly 4 times the cost of the proposed SCSC as bonus.
These guys just need to say the new particle collider will be used to investigate the impact of the Higgs Boson on climate change, and they’ll never be short of funding.
It will sound funny, but there is research about impact of cosmic rays on the climate and/or whether formation. they have scientific papers published. :D it sounds out there, but they are doing estimation. think what you will.
@@zurabkepuladze3986 I remember hearing about an observed inverse correlation between clouds and cosmic rays. I don't know anything beyond that and in any case am not qualified to evaluate the merits of the theory. What I can say, even as a regular layperson, is that climate change research reeks of bias and corruption, and I'm skeptical of anybody who profits from it in any way. The people in this video remind me of them.
Fund research on how to enhance the atmospheric methane sink by mimicking natural processes? Nooooo! People might stop trying to reduce their carbon footprint. Bring on the tipping points!
Tipping point due to high altitude moisture? What do you think about jets leaving contrails made of water vapor at hogh altitude. These jet aircraft are spreading moisture right where we don't need it. They are gonna push us over the tipping point with their jet exhaust, isn't it so? An olypic swimming pool worth of jet fuel turned into water and then spread at altitude, thus accelerating climate change towards that runaway global warming.
Hi, not arguing with you. What other alternatives are there to figure out what matter is made of and how to prove existing of particles that constitute the said matter?
Your really call yourself a physicist? So much sarcasm and taking the worst possible meaning of words but actually not doing a critical review of the work you "cite". If you actually paid attention to the round table discussion, most of the people on it were skeptical of the new collider. Your entire MO seems to be anti-establishment BS which I guess must get you the clicks on your videos. This is just embarrassing.
I searched RUclips for "physicists in fantasy world" to find exactly this kind of video, and it knew exactly what I meant. Glad to see I found another channel with a firm grip on reality.
Good tip. Searching for anything that disagrees with the mainstream is difficult especially with all the new clone channels that are “flooding the market”.
@@jay.u I agree. Divide and conquer, or is it compartmentalize and capitalize. The garbage it suggests for my kids is also disheartening to see. Nothing but distractions. The fantasy search didn’t have any decent results for me. But pseudo and out there did. Mostly still things that you have to read between the lines on, because it goes against the one telling the story.
Hello! I appreciate putting theories into question, thanks for the perspective. Anyway I dont see the contradiction of a theory being succesful yet incomplete. Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, but it still was a very succesful theory. Regarding the monetary question: There is so much public money spent on war, and probably other unfruitful endeavours I don't even know about, that investing in particle colliders might be one of the least harmful things to spend it on? And who knows, even if chances might be low, they could still discover something new!
His comments really show a lack of understanding of the theory of the Standard Model (SM). The SM is one of the most rigorously tested models in physics. It describes the universe and particle interactions with quantitative predicted outcomes. The derivation of the SM incorporates the interaction of the bosons and fermions. A number of these interactions have been tested. However, certain interactions or particle properties are not predicted by the original SM derivation. Therefore, these are the extensions which he referenced. And while he claims extensions mean "bad physics", it's simply that these interactions were not included originally. For example, if the SM initially included the assumption of massive neutrinos then we would call the massless version "an extension". Or, similarly with Dirac vs. Majorana. Anyway, long comment, but I appreciate your comment on the Newtonian mechanics success and incompleteness.
@@jamie11637 The Newtonian mechanics where not incomplete in any sense of the word. It is the extension of the observed realm several centuries later that has driven us to the development of augmenting theories. This is a significant ontological difference.
I can't speak for the rest of your comment. But you're implying that since huge amounts of money is wasted on useless wars, that means it's okay to spend huge amounts of money on other potentially useless stuff since it's less harmful. That's a silly argument. It's like saying oh well I just stole a 1000 bucks, the other guy on the news stole a million. Don't come at me. Make a case for how the money isn't being wasted. This whole concept of money is being wasted elsewhere so let's not complain about this waste is just... so silly.
We could also reduce taxes. Or diversify 10 billion into a thousand potential projects that only require 10 million of funding. Possibly fusion, thorium or battery related research.
It would be interesting to check how much money we spent really per year e.g. for colliders, for astro physics, for nuclear fusion or for semiconductor research or maybe AI (by government and commercially). And compare it to lobbying and bureaucracy.
If I'm not mistaken, Lawrence Krauss said in one of his lectures that he couldn't pray without the Hadron Collider. This might have something to do with them needing another one and suggest that Quantum theories are religious to them as well.
It’s excruciating for you isn’t it? Love your delivery and the fact your not in the hive minded group. I don’t even know the extent of mathematics you know and I feel your pain just listening to it.
Let them build jet another huge particle accelerator. It would be interesting to see what they do when the Higgs "signal" would turn out to be not demonstrable there. Wait a moment. I know already: such a confirmation experiment will be declared to be not cost effective and never done.
@@Squidlark Yes. A Particle has never actually been demonstrated. Just some noise in decay sequences roughly fitting assumptions and ignoring anything not fitting them was presented as actual discovery.
Scientists is a relativistic term. Physicist is a proper title. Kinda like when a hurricane or a solar storm becomes the focus’s on mass media outlets and the anchor says “scientist say “a” is the cause of “c” upon examining “b” , could be a phlebotomist commenting about meteorological or Astronomy , a scientist told me 🤣
Looks like a lot of people who are interested in the natural world, are fed up with the nonsense coming out of modern physics. We should be building a new society of naturalists, to discuss ideas that make sense.
can someone please explain to me the hypothesis that stars are made of liquid and not gas? I tried researching it and found nothing. The gas and gravity explanation makes sense to me am I missing something?
9:15 Mucho Kuku is a very poor scientist but a moderately decent scifi author who, by calling it futurism (wild guesses about the future), sells his speculative scifi with no character or story arcs as nonfiction.
Exactly!! He's a very dull version of Carl Sagan.. who apparently didn't do any science, just moderated 'working groups' who did real science. Every person who graduates with a bs degree should be required to put in at least 10 years employed outside Academia in the 'real world' where you have to Produce the work you were hired to do. Only after a proven Practical Work Resumé should they be allowed to pontificate at the Masters level. Then go back out there for another 10 years before coming back for a phd. Goes for ALL degrees in all college programs.
The collider method is violence. Please keep that in mind. Its brute force isn’t exactly taking atomic nucleus apart, but more like smashing or shooting it into pieces. Therefore, its results will likely be fragments of elementary particles rather than the elementary particles themselves. At least, it is inaccurate or even dishonest, unintentionally, of course, whether the they are talking about reality or their wishful thinking, a dream, or lying unconsciously, such as sleepwalking.
If the results found there where truly fundamental, we would see independent replication by other huge nations like China, the US or Japan or maybe even India. Jet for some reason none really bothers.
'Epicycles...' at 25:04. Did you notice the seconds of silence before everyone burst into laughter. Funny... and true. Thanks Alexander. I'm rereading your book, Einstein's Lost Key, digesting the work of Dicke. Interesting, and I like that someone questioned General Relativity. What I find odd is that no one seems to have identified the oddity that the universe somehow knew it was going to require such complexity, at the origin.
The complexity is created by mankind and a lot of physicists seem to revel in it. However the basics must be unbelievably simple. And the conclusions inevitable.
@@janhemmer8181 No. It is well known in modern mathematics that in fact most of the questions out there don't have a solution, which can be encompassed by a relatively limited tool such as our mind. Non analytic functions are all over the place. Badly adjusted inverse problems with inherent instabilities are all over the place. Undecidability theorems are all over the place. And then add a plenty of unsolved fundamental questions on which whole disciplines are built in to the mix. It's not accidental, that we see already since at least two or maybe even three generations the stagnation of fundamental sciences. In my opinion this is one of the reasons more and more of science is drifting in to the semi-religious obscure. If you can't provide real results under pressure, you start to try to BS your way out. Fundamental human nature applies to everyone: scientist too.
@@rosomak8244and yet we see structure and order despite all the chaos we clutter ourselves with. Even black holes have their purpose. I agree with the above comment. The basics must be very simple.
Because it is a religion and not a science. Whenever you reject the quackery, you can expect the "you just do not understand" response posited by anyone whom has just observed someone rejecting their religion.
@@tictacX1 "Because it explains/predicys most of the physics experiments we can do in labs." Not really. "lepton universality", "electroweak monopole', etc I have doubts that quarks exists as described in the standard model. Probably also no such think as the Gluon, Z & W Boson's. Data from collider experiments isn't conclusive enough to prove it.
instead of an new accelerator, in my opinion, we should verify the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum theory, i.e. study the entaglement for larger masses and their gravitational behavior, check whether randomness really exists - try to check the repetition of physical experiments s on a very small scale etc
Oh No!! Not being able to REPEAT the Results!! Not Checking Your Work!! Not Proof Reading the Math Used?? Not making sure they aren't pulling another 'Hocky Stick' garbage math formula like the one that started the Global Warming Political Gold Mine. Don't Say you don't TRUST them.. lol
A side thought, related though to your subject: more ought to be done on availability (sharing) of original research data: most often they are not published. More also on detailed reporting of details of experimental procedures so it is easier to repeat them. More on detailed description of computer simulations - mostly it is not possible to repeat them due to the lack of these details (authors are often not even aware that some details play a huge role)
@Zbigniew Koziol worked with research scientists while they tried to organize their work in a presentable form for lectures, presentations to groups, and publications. Original data usually isn't collected in a way that can be included in a published article. Too bulky. Nor do most scientists have any understanding of basic computer programs. They turn over data to the IT folks and wait. Particularly in Physics. Renaissance Minds are extremely Rare.
One would think you need smaller particles to find successively smaller particles but no, they just want to use electrons. This seems to be one key problem. They are hung up on electron particle accelerators. If you think quarks exist, then you need a quark accelerator to make smaller particles, not a bigger electron accelerator. And if you cannot make quarks, you have a problem doing anything smaller. That is, you have to stairstep using each smaller particle to find the next level. They don't do this presumably because they have a problem with quarks, like making a kilo to study.
Wow! You have no idea how much I've enjoyed this, you are a breath of fresh air in the science landscape, and I'm sure you are considered an heretic by academia, which for me is always a sign of someone being a step ahead. I'm not a physicist by the way, I'm a self taught phylosoper and researcher on the origins of civilization, I'm a true skeptic, meaning I question everything and I'm ready to accept as much, as opposed to the cult of skepticism led by people like Shermer that questions anything that isn't part of the consensus, and accepts anything as long as it's part of the consensus. I loved every point you made here, it is pure common sense, everything you say I've said myself, and the usual response is that I don't understand physics and I should get a PhD before opening my mouth, a fantastic argument, that in real life would make having any conversation impossible, I mean, can we talk about cars without being mechanics? Can we talk about music without being musicians? Anyhow, I'm very happy I've found your channel, thank you for the great content and the honest approach to science.
@@anderslarsen4412 What he says is easy to understand, in contrast to particle physics. That is why people who are not able to understand physics but want to be smart listen to that bs
long ago I played golf with the CEO of a company that received mega-sized contracts from the US govt on scientific and defense projects, so I asked him about the SSC (to be built in Texas long ago) and assumed he'd be very sympathetic and enthusiastic about its construction. He laughed and said "welfare for the over-educated". I was younger and naïve at the time, but now I understand.
this "no" decision would have been a win if gvt had put the money into a revised ORNL Thoruim-MoltenSaltReactor project (now actually Shanghai grabbed the baton; see GordonMcDowell's RUclipss). A high temperature MSR couldn't just produce Hydrogen (cheaply) and electricity, it could supply process heat to refineries, chemical industry, and cement ovens! With that source of heat available today (not in 30 years) it would be economical to extract tar sands now and then in 30 years to do CO2 capture and make high quality, sulfur-free diesel and gas from H2CO3 and CO2.
We have a giant, high powered particle collider above our heads beyond the upper atmosphere. Why don't they utilize that for their arcane, vanity projects?
Mr. Unzicker you have a sense of humor like the great german-american actor Christopher Waltz!! i just came across your channel and am really enjoying the content
Thank you for explaining why the two teams found different energy levels. Then even worse it turned out the two teams did communicate. Yet these things were waved off and the discovery was announced. So we are to understand that lack of rigor was allowed because their funding was at stake.
Hi Jon s. I haven’t got even a subscription to ‘Owl’ magazine to speak to my qualifications to discuss the substance of this RUclips matter of importance, but I just like to pose the question here for consideration of other better trained minds; So they keep building these things, and creating all this justification in the public domain. When no real public support is probably necessary to secure the funding. But is there any other potential or actual use these colliders can be directly used for or maybe adapted to perform that would help clarify why ‘we’ need to produce more of them?? The posting here provided is of course very important to debunk the premise that we need them, but I’m just wondering if it is about more than just career advancing prestige or money to those groups who supply parts and do the build and operate tasks. They got that basketball spinning on one finger but all we are seeing is a blurry image of the surface not the mechanics (no pun intended?) of how this is possible. Posted day 3/23 from Jen in Canada
That dark matter is unfalsifiable needs to be shouted regularly. That the physicists sound like the very worst new age gurus should be an embarrassment. But they need money for their next toy, so shame is something a salesman has no time for.
Imagine brazenly postulating an entity and defining it as undetectable, and then saying that's science. That's like me not understanding how a car engine starts, so I postulate car starting pixies, oh but you know, they're undetectable, but you can detect their effects, the fact that the car engine is starting.
@@cunjoz in college when I first learned of "dark energy" I asked how well will this theory go over if they called it angels. At that point I knew they were just making it all up.
@@loulasher holy shit i just remembered that the medieval scholastics thought that angels are responsible for the movement of the heavenly bodies. just as valid as dark matter/energy
@@cunjoz right!?!? It's like we just replaced one vocabulary with another. When I was younger I read a bit of Aristotle and then some Plato. They used what they had to reason out a lot. While there are some glaring errors (lack of a scientific method or use of experiments being not the only problems) they and the later stoics were certainly onto something, as were the medieval scholastics who, in counting angels on pins or (better) pondering first causes and thinking teliologically, were dealing with fundamental things as best they could. I just don't like dismissing great minds from the past like we're smarter just because there's more data now as if there's also not more bs (let alone nominalism and subjectivism) to shift through also. Especially in seeing things teliologically, it's a more formal, logical, and better version of the new age "we're all connected maaannnn, you can't seperate cause from effect or matter from empty space. Like where do you end and I begin" nonsense.
I recall a quote from somewhere: "If giving the correct answer risks loosing your funding, some other answer is often utilized" (dont remember the exact quote)
Wonderful video. I would say that all people involved in physics should read two books: On The Division of Nature by John Scottus Eriugena and A Theory of Natural Philosophy by Roger Boscovich. The former will show them how to use logic and the apophatic method; the latter shows a completely different way to look at the interactions of particles or fields, whichever you feel makes up the material Universe. I have only read Part 1 of The Theory of Natural Philosophy, which covers his theory completely, but it made me rethink all that I know about physical interactions. Fair warning, neither book is a quick read, both are highly intelligent and released in the 9th and 18th centuries, respectively. By the way, I have read and love the Higgs Fake and Bankrupting Physics, both wonderful books to read.
They will continue down this path, because the alternative is to admit that they've been going down a wrong road for 100 years or more. Also once you get away from particles and into ether physics, you have to start dealing with things that atheists hate such as "consciousness" and "god" etc
@@gastronic what's unscientific is pretending my word choice has something to do with the veracity of particle physics. you just haven't done the reading, is the truth!
@@numberonedad Fact is (never mind your subjective truth), brother Number, there can be many accurate predictions of very little importance. I'm sure Sabine has done all the reading, and she seems to agree with me. 🙏 ruclips.net/video/lu4mH3Hmw2o/видео.html
It's so interesting to see physicists disagreeing with each other on the cutting edge of high-level knowledge. But it's easy to see human nature involved in getting grant money by many of the same people. Thank you, professor. Quite entertaining.
@@TheMachian professor of 'neuroscience' by the way, which... doesn't have much of a connection to theoretical physics. I wonder how much of this you actually understand...?
Considering that we're not even close to getting Fusion power to work, there's obviously no practical benefit to understanding reactions orders of magnitude more powerful.
Hi, I remember the hype related to the LHC years ago, and one of the examples that was repeated in media over and over and over again was that the science behind LHC (or particle physics) is what enabled the development of MRI machines that save thousands of lives. Now, you pointed here out that particle physicist tend to presents results from other fields as their own (or at least, being enabled by their research), so I was wondering, was collider science crucial to the development of MRI, or is just standard physics already covered by research in other fields?
@Unzicker's Real Physics Thank you for your reply. Related to strong magnets, I see that more as an engineering challenge, in the realm of applied science; even if strong electromagnets were first designed for a colider, it's a bit disingenuous for them to claim the MRI for their field.
The part when Michio Kaku said something like “We’ll find out what happened before Genesis 1 verse 1” was interesting. I’m curious if he’s a Christian or if he’s trying not to alienate the theists and keep those avenues open for possible future donations. There is a large amount of religious conspiracy theory media online about CERN raising the devil and the people who work there are worshipping him, there’s weird satanic iconography everywhere and other such ridiculous nonsense. I’d bet he’s aware of that narrative being pretty common and was throwing a little Genesis name drop in there for the theists. Holding out an olive branch so to speak
Which book of his was it? Years ago I was watching an interview between David Berlinski and Peter Robinson discussing this very topic: the scientific overreach at public expense, and the example given was yet-another billion dollar super collider. I could go on and try to pull up some pithy quotes of Berlinski, and Berlinski quotes are the pithiest quotes possible, but the answer is always the same: 'It's just so damned interesting [to us] another ten billion dollars please.'
There's popular science and there's science fiction. And here's some fictional science for the sake of politics. It is cringe material for anyone with the slightest understanding, but those are not the audience of Murayama and Kaku.
From the outside looking in, you appear to be saying that particle physics is the equivalent of throwing bones or reading tea leaves. Reading tea leaves is a lot less expensive.
What is the end goal of particle physics? Breaking things into smaller particles doesn't ultimately solve the problem of what particles are made of which presumably must be some inherent property of quantum space.
Why are physicist worried about tax payer money? a new collider would not even be 1% of the national budget contributing nations. Not even 1% of 1% over the 10 or 15 years it would need to be built. We spent more money on pencils and laptops for the bureaucracy. I would be happier spending the money on colliders, telescopes, etc.
Of course they didn't. Weve known for over a century that Gravity doesn't exist as a force! Like friction its a phenomenon. Its the result of change in momentum being that momentum is time. ie on earth we are constantly accelerating through time.
Pitying all of you unqualified, uneducated, clueless, envious dullards trying to argue how physics is wrong without having the necessary toolsets to even apply physical or mathematical reasoning to understand the concepts. Your nonsense is based on layman explanations of the subjects, made by youtubers who live on your envy that keeps you coming to watch his videos. You’re arguing against strawmen.
We are told that the Higgs is metastable, and that at some energy level the universe tips over and the laws of physics change. At what energy level is that? By their calculations will that be achievable with the next collider upgrade?
The way it is done since 1930 is a dead end. I have constructive proposals in my book "Higgs Hake". Repeat key experiemnts permanently, clear documentation, put all the old data on the web, etc.
Tell them they can get a new collider with profits from a working fusion reactor.
@Paul Wolf "Germans need to fix those gas pipelines blown up by their so-called allies."
That's never going to happen. The EU is heading for de-industrialization and probably resemble the 19th century
Lol for real
Just another 10 years...(been hearing that for a few decades) I remember reading a Popular Mechanics magazine when I was in high school in the 90s that said we were very close to a working reactor, just like how close we were to making life in a lab, or building a moon base...the money never stops, but the results never change...
@@allhopeabandon7831 And at the same time the maths department was screaming all the time: "Those underlying equations can't be tamed! We have actual proof for that!".
Lol. The recent news of fusion energy gain was a fundraiser too. The Department of Energy had a panel of the scientists in involved. They spoke about the experiment took questions. Lots of double talk about how great the experiment was. (You need an untold millions or billion dollar machine, held behind top secret national defense wall, to replicate the results.) And that the breakthrough will pave the future of fusion, but that the results are years away from having an actual commerical power plant. Because you need a 500 trillion Watt laser, that is basically used to make better nukes. As the fusion experiment only uses 10% of machine's operating budget. It was a side job. And who knows if it was created with the understanding the program was going to be cut, because we already have more nukes than we need.
I'm so tired of everything being a scam and humans being so corrupt, just waking up in the morning and realising I'm still here is exhausting.
Poor you :(
The world is based on lies. Vedic texts knew all we needed to know. Thousands of years ago. Donald Hoffman has a video explaining how we hallucinate our reality. Survival drives evolution not truth hence your and mine dilemma. The answer is meditation
You need to sleep longer, dont get up that early!
Well said, and I share your sentiment.
Sad to say advanced physics is full of pompous a**es that simply want to show how smart they are while spewing propaganda like BS.
When you fund a problem majorly enough, it tends to create ways to never solve itself so that it keeps taking more funding
It is the same with climate science. Although the science is "settled", billions and billions of funding are out into it. You can not ask any questions. And yet every year, the IPCC selectively publishes vetted research in evermore catastrophic reports.
This is the way
Celebrity scientists have learned how to milk mass media, just like good Hollywood actors and the Kardashians.
They really do need to milk the Kardashians
This is the type of drama content I never knew I needed.
It's great that someone is publicly calling these grifters out.
DARK MATTER
Ahhh particle physics... it's the science of obtaining perpetual funding
Akin to Climate Change 'science'.
The collider method is violence. Please keep that in mind. Its brute force isn’t exactly taking atomic nucleus apart, but more like smashing or shooting it into pieces. Therefore, its results will likely be fragments of elementary particles rather than the elementary particles themselves. At least, it is inaccurate or even dishonest, unintentionally, of course, whether the they are talking about reality or their wishful thinking, a dream, or lying unconsciously, such as sleepwalking.
Nuclear fusion smells similar. Jobs for the boys...
@@thedarkmoon2341 just estimate a campfire's ratio of energy output to input - a match
How to oppress the populace?… spend their money on frivolous and misleading bullshit to prevent any real progress in society.
I'm really liking this trend of physics coming to youtube, following you right now, the work of Sabine woke me up of a lot of stuff is happening in the field.
Soon they will get banned for hatespeach. Such is the way of things
There has been a trend recently for naming publicly funded projects and infrastructure by online polling. If this is the case with the new collider I'm going to resist the urge to suggest 'Collidie McCollideface, and go instead with 'ADG' (Ambiguous Data Generator).
Correction- it should be AFG Ambiguous Funding Generator
ELPC - extremely large propulsion coils
@@Dave5843-d9m or maybe UFG Unambiguous Funding Generator
This is the internet. We all know it'll just end up being HDNW.
Petition to just call it "waste of time and money" collider
What many of those scientists need to realise is that when a theory is build upon false or incomplete data, it stops being science.
Someone who speaks with a permanent smile is generally someone to be avoided.
He just smiled in the beginning. And you gotta admit, there were a lot of bs arguments from that conference guy.
Kaku is a master fraud, paid well for sure.
@@En_theo hey pal if u do not understand the subject, it does not mean it is BS. just saying, food for thought.
Yes, that guy from MIT is very suspicious. He looks to be auditioning as a replacement for Brian Greene, etc.
@@silafuyang8675
The last few years I have seen Kaku say the most ...incredible bizarre things. Probably bought and sold, yes.
They talk in that weird way politicians do, where they just skirt around an answer instead of actually giving one. It seems odd to me for scientists to be discussing things with language like this
The powerful one manipulates “truth” without opposition, the weakling has to help himself with lies.
Large expensive projects which involve inscrutable financing are, quite understandably the only things politicians are comfortable funding.
We need more such projects, the more the better … because the only other thing which lines the right pockets with any comparable efficiency is … good old War.
The ultimate irony. Sad because it's at least partially true.
It's just money! But it's sinister that something like a huge potlatch is achieved by the largest detour through theoretical science. Scientific progress went along very well with the two world wars and the atomic bomb, but this comedy has all the signs of a scientific self-dismissal. Or is it just that the language of science has to serve all needs.
it was while I pondered double slit that a cockroach walked across the ceiling and belly flopped onto my dinner plate
building a space force to fight aliens also works
You have acquired a new subscriber👍 . One that was happy for building the LHC. But now there are way more important science projects to build at present. ❤
it's like the military industrial complex in America--the establishment ends the careers of critics so that those who make money off the system can continue to do so.
Isn't MIC at least a bit more rigorous and grounded in reality as even lay people notice whether superior firepower was actually achieved? If you want some American analogies, I'd rather look towards some pathologies in soft science that do metastasize towards more rigorous fields.
Same thing happens in medicine too. Check out bad pharma by Goldachre
I like both you and Sabine Hossenfelder for your knowledge, information and opinions that you've shared online and especially for your truthfulness in calling out the BS you've seen in physics.
Sabine is awesome. She just made a video about how it’s slightly possible the particle accelerators could open a blackhole on earth but in he usual joking manner. I always had a problem with the accelerator or ers since there’s already more than one since they began building the latest. Some of the claims didn’t seem to be coming from actual physicist, like when on one hand the particles were said to be colliding at the speed of light and on the other side it’s stated the particles travel at the speed of light which would mean the impacts force is liken more to twice or near the speed of light just like 2 cars traveling at 50 KPH or MPH the impact is measured at 100 KPH or MPH. Presently I feel the same or hear results could be observed in the same manner using the same methods being procured presently in fusion reactor development, create a dab of particles in a deep vacuum at near sub zero temps on a nano scale concentrated upon a micro pinpoint heavily coated with a form of high strength material to encapsulate and preserve the sample , even in the same manner artificial diamonds are made or even an epoxy base and shoot high energy lasers at it in a containment surrounded by sensors for review. , it that works then tens of thousands of experiments using multiple forms of particles could get performed in less time then what the hadron collider is capable of. 🤷♂️ ask a physicist 😁
The Germans do like no bull shit
How could you compare him with Sabine?
@@rebellion-starwars It's not about comparing them, it's about the qualities that they share and which I like, mainly that they're both smart and honest about physics.
@@treasurepoem but you are comparing real scientist with fake one.
Modern Physics is a new priesthood. Rather than counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin in Ancient Latin. We now have quantum particles in indecipherable maths. Instead of stain glass windows, we now have the Webb images of the universe, and colliders rather than Cathedrals. I'm already a huge Sabine fan. Subscribed.
Next time you need a MRI go to a cathedral.
@@florincoter1988 My degree is in physics and OP is right. Science has become a sort of deified religion. There is huge issues underlying a lot of physics, and science in general.
Sun Scholar is a great channel; he points out the outdated notions of cosmology and astronomy that we still use only because those models were created 100 years ago and continuously built upon, so to start with something fresh and better always requires a paradigm shift.
For instance, the claim that stars are gaseous bodies is almost nonsensical; how can gas collapse? The gas density they claim that collapse into stars is literally what we would call a vacuum on Earth.
Stars are liquid, and their surface reflects that. You can see ripples, just like when a rock is thrown in a pond. Modern astronomers explain this away as an 'illusion' of which is caused by super complicated gaseous interactions. Occam's razor comes to mind
I could go on and on and on, and I have direct access to a lot of stuff at university, since my major was in physics and my ultimate goal is getting a PhD in theoretical physics.
LIGO is another joke; they aren't measuring what they think they are; the 'black hole' images are most jokes; no one can replicate their experiment, and when you read the methodology, you realize literally any image could've been extracted from the data they had. But they know the 'end goal' of what they want and adjust the mathematical coefficients until the desired image comes out.
That is what is going on in a lot of fields; just straight up fudging data or being really sly with it. This is why meta studies show that over 50% of all published scientific papers cannot be replicated, yet are taken as fact. THAT IS HUGE
@@florincoter1988 The arrogance of the modern scientific community in a nutshell.
The Yellow. Sabines were witches. The nazis called the ancient Saxon Wivern (a symbol used by a Division of the British Territorial Army in WWII) the yellow devil.
@@pyropulseIXXI undergraduate where? mozambique? You are lying about your understanding of the field.
ITER is another project which cannot possibly succeed at anything except a design for a reactor which can be built in about 8 locations in the world, and in order to produce the most expensive electricity of all time. No. ITER will produce a stack of PhDs taller than the reactor building, but no viable reactor can ever come from it. It's interesting science, but its main job is to justify the massive salaries of a huge number of people from a lot of countries.
So, the only question I have is what do YOU suggest to do? Should we all abandon our hopes to improve the models of hadronic interactions, hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions? Should we all get fired and start making videos for youtube? Should we cancel our hopes to reach the center-of-mass energy in collider experiments equivalent to highest energies of cosmic rays, so the problem like muon puzzle will never be solved completely? No QGP studies at higher energies to get the clear signals of it formation, to study the higher PT region? No search for deviation of rare decays branching? Leave everything as it is with current models not being able to describe inclusively all processes that happen at high energies?
What I see in examples you have shown, is the struggle to provide the simple explanations of the problems that are studied now. And yes, the stars couldn’t shine with different electron mass, and yes, it is both good to see whether the standard model make a correct prediction or we observe something that directly contradicts it.
It is easy to criticize, but it would be much better to see the proper suggestions and solutions.
Just because we don’t have somewhere better to throw mountains of money doesn’t mean we should throw it in a hole.
@@lkytmryan Oh yeah? So that’s why it is better to leave thousands of brilliant minds without jobs and that’s why Europe is wasting billions in bs like global warming fight with “climate lockdown” and “clean energy” and sending useless military equipment for a proxy war in Ukraine?
@@РоманНиколаенко-ъ9й Europe has a the largest collider in the world and they are still wasting billions on climate change so I don't know what you are talkin about.
Those 1000s of brilliant minds can surely figure out some way to make money, otherwise, how brilliant could they possibly be?
@@lkytmryan Of course they can figure it out. The question is, is it better for them to waste their potential in doing useless money earning, like making youtube videos, or try to achieve our goals? If it is okay to waste money in something non-scientific, why not to “waste” it to science?
This kind of hubris is exactly why I pivoted from a degree in physics to a PhD in photovoltaics. At least what I'm working on now will have some consequence to the world.
photovoltaics rely on principles discovered by experimentation by material scientists and the discoveries of physicists.
Well, just be thankful during your pivot you managed to avoid Gender Studies....
...but enough about me!
and i, after a ph.d. in theoretical physics (not particle physics, but some arcana of filed theory) simply settled to teaching and appreciating undergraduate level physics....
My PhD is theoretical physics. I will be the one to usher in the paradigm shift, as well as other great people in this field. Gone will be the days of oafish quantum ways
Good work asking these questions Prof!
I majored in Physics as an undergrad, inspired by popular physics works like Hawking's and Brian Greene's books. You've articulated a lot of the doubts I had in school which caused me to eventually burn out and focus on pure mathematics.
Tbh it’s all a scam
@@adamfattal468 says the troglodyte
@@konstantink614 Why would you call me that
@@adamfattal468 why would you call modern physics a scam?
@@konstantink614 Idk
What a wonderful video to start the year with! Happy 2023!
As usual you are shining a beam of pure light on the pure drivel polluting our field of physics. Please keep on with your mission!
TBH, whole video is like an misinterpretation of words as you want. When they say that higgs was observed in rare decay they 100% correct, because higgs branching ratio to 2gamma decay is 0.2%. It's not dirty channel, because "every particle" don't decay into a pair of 60GeV photons.
You are confirming what I said. According to your definition, every channel today is rare, because the "frequent" decays have already been seen in past experiments. You should let sink in the absurdity to consider a 2 photon decay however.
@@TheMachian No. Rare means in comparison with other decay channels of a GIVEN particle. You can say if channel rare or not if you already observed particle and know it total decay width.
What absurdity of 2 gamma decay do you mean? 2gamma is easiest thing to observe on LHC because of low background.
Man you almost gave me the creeps!
I'm also a physicist and struggle every day to understand this nonsense!
Thanks God I'm not alone anymore!
Now back to real physics!
Thank you so much!
You are 100 percent not a working physicist.
How do you think physics is going to progress?
I'm also a physicist, but I wouldn't presume to declare something I don't understand "nonsense".
Yeah, the entire consensus of the field says the opposite of what this dude thinks. Along with the the same following of barely educated, obviously mentally ill followers saying "OMG THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO EVER YOU ARE THE BEST FAKE PHYSICIST EVER MAN!"
@Camptonweat I do understand. So sorry but I do fully understand. Never mind...
music to my ears.. someone who can see past arrogance and illusion
I'm so glad I found your channel. I thought I was alone on this planet!
Gratitude for your argument and the comments, as these defend the skepticists among us, non-physicists. Unfortunately, non-physicists are essentially muted against "recognized scientific boards", and can raise no voice of objection, if the rest of the Physics community remains idle, in view of "ground-breaking scientific advances". Some do suspect that data science has over-aided scientific validation.
The title is so appropriate. These particle physicists are so much up themselves - how many of them at CERN? Over 2000 - don't worry about the poor, the hungry or homeless lets spend another 10 or 15 billion on a collider.
Weird logic, a 2000 employee company is not large. Should we buy another warplane or missile program with the money instead?
@@psyborg06 Very good logic. You don't spend 15 billion on a weird project and at the same time have poverty and homlessness. But don't worry about an equitable and well adjusted society - lets spend 15billion at Cern so 2000 employees can get excited about more powerful magnets.
@@IrfanAli-qp1gm What world do you live in, it happens all the time and at scales that make CERN look like pennies. That is my point, which you have missed.
That is a rather bullshit argument to make if you look at defense spending, which is orders of magnitude more. Elon musk paid roughly 4 times the cost of the LHC to buy Twitter!, and is now trying to convince the Tesla shareholders that he deserves roughly 4 times the cost of the proposed SCSC as bonus.
These guys just need to say the new particle collider will be used to investigate the impact of the Higgs Boson on climate change, and they’ll never be short of funding.
It will sound funny, but there is research about impact of cosmic rays on the climate and/or whether formation. they have scientific papers published. :D it sounds out there, but they are doing estimation. think what you will.
@@zurabkepuladze3986 I remember hearing about an observed inverse correlation between clouds and cosmic rays. I don't know anything beyond that and in any case am not qualified to evaluate the merits of the theory. What I can say, even as a regular layperson, is that climate change research reeks of bias and corruption, and I'm skeptical of anybody who profits from it in any way. The people in this video remind me of them.
Fund research on how to enhance the atmospheric methane sink by mimicking natural processes? Nooooo! People might stop trying to reduce their carbon footprint. Bring on the tipping points!
if
Tipping point due to high altitude moisture? What do you think about jets leaving contrails made of water vapor at hogh altitude. These jet aircraft are spreading moisture right where we don't need it. They are gonna push us over the tipping point with their jet exhaust, isn't it so? An olypic swimming pool worth of jet fuel turned into water and then spread at altitude, thus accelerating climate change towards that runaway global warming.
Hi, not arguing with you. What other alternatives are there to figure out what matter is made of and how to prove existing of particles that constitute the said matter?
Your really call yourself a physicist? So much sarcasm and taking the worst possible meaning of words but actually not doing a critical review of the work you "cite". If you actually paid attention to the round table discussion, most of the people on it were skeptical of the new collider. Your entire MO seems to be anti-establishment BS which I guess must get you the clicks on your videos. This is just embarrassing.
The panelists skeptical? Are you kidding?
I searched RUclips for "physicists in fantasy world" to find exactly this kind of video, and it knew exactly what I meant. Glad to see I found another channel with a firm grip on reality.
Good tip. Searching for anything that disagrees with the mainstream is difficult especially with all the new clone channels that are “flooding the market”.
@@jay.u I agree. Divide and conquer, or is it compartmentalize and capitalize.
The garbage it suggests for my kids is also disheartening to see.
Nothing but distractions.
The fantasy search didn’t have any decent results for me. But pseudo and out there did. Mostly still things that you have to read between the lines on, because it goes against the one telling the story.
nice confirmation bias
Hello!
I appreciate putting theories into question, thanks for the perspective. Anyway I dont see the contradiction of a theory being succesful yet incomplete. Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, but it still was a very succesful theory.
Regarding the monetary question: There is so much public money spent on war, and probably other unfruitful endeavours I don't even know about, that investing in particle colliders might be one of the least harmful things to spend it on? And who knows, even if chances might be low, they could still discover something new!
His comments really show a lack of understanding of the theory of the Standard Model (SM). The SM is one of the most rigorously tested models in physics. It describes the universe and particle interactions with quantitative predicted outcomes. The derivation of the SM incorporates the interaction of the bosons and fermions. A number of these interactions have been tested. However, certain interactions or particle properties are not predicted by the original SM derivation. Therefore, these are the extensions which he referenced. And while he claims extensions mean "bad physics", it's simply that these interactions were not included originally. For example, if the SM initially included the assumption of massive neutrinos then we would call the massless version "an extension". Or, similarly with Dirac vs. Majorana. Anyway, long comment, but I appreciate your comment on the Newtonian mechanics success and incompleteness.
"Lack of understanding of the SM" = not being brainwashed. I am glad my comments show that.
@@jamie11637 The Newtonian mechanics where not incomplete in any sense of the word. It is the extension of the observed realm several centuries later that has driven us to the development of augmenting theories. This is a significant ontological difference.
I can't speak for the rest of your comment.
But you're implying that since huge amounts of money is wasted on useless wars, that means it's okay to spend huge amounts of money on other potentially useless stuff since it's less harmful.
That's a silly argument. It's like saying oh well I just stole a 1000 bucks, the other guy on the news stole a million. Don't come at me.
Make a case for how the money isn't being wasted. This whole concept of money is being wasted elsewhere so let's not complain about this waste is just... so silly.
We could also reduce taxes.
Or diversify 10 billion into a thousand potential projects that only require 10 million of funding. Possibly fusion, thorium or battery related research.
It would be interesting to check how much money we spent really per year e.g. for colliders, for astro physics, for nuclear fusion or for semiconductor research or maybe AI (by government and commercially). And compare it to lobbying and bureaucracy.
If I'm not mistaken, Lawrence Krauss said in one of his lectures that he couldn't pray without the Hadron Collider. This might have something to do with them needing another one and suggest that Quantum theories are religious to them as well.
Unzicker reminds us that if we unauthentically wallow in appearing 'smart' for an audience, we will ALWAYS be uncovered. Watch out!
Your commentary alone makes this video worth watching... both hilarious and sad. Your frustration is shared - keep up the hard-hitting skepticism!
It’s excruciating for you isn’t it? Love your delivery and the fact your not in the hive minded group. I don’t even know the extent of mathematics you know and I feel your pain just listening to it.
Let them build jet another huge particle accelerator. It would be interesting to see what they do when the Higgs "signal" would turn out to be not demonstrable there. Wait a moment. I know already: such a confirmation experiment will be declared to be not cost effective and never done.
Higgs signal?
It is far more likely they will blow up the Earth or irradiate everyone than discover anything new with a new particle accelerator.
@@Squidlark Yes. A Particle has never actually been demonstrated. Just some noise in decay sequences roughly fitting assumptions and ignoring anything not fitting them was presented as actual discovery.
@@rosomak8244 That's an intelligent way to put it. Thanks for the explanation.
@@Squidlark I think you'll find that on closer examination a similar amount of data ignoring or outright tampering is present in modern climatology.
Also loved the line about continuing to improve the epicycles. What a classic! Am now subscribed.
New subscriber, enjoy when I find a scientist that actually does science. Look forward to seeing more of your work.
Welcome aboard!
The legit programs don't get funding, and the hard working scientists don't get credit.
Typically scientist analyze the data
Scientists is a relativistic term. Physicist is a proper title. Kinda like when a hurricane or a solar storm becomes the focus’s on mass media outlets and the anchor says “scientist say “a” is the cause of “c” upon examining “b” , could be a phlebotomist commenting about meteorological or Astronomy , a scientist told me 🤣
Looks like a lot of people who are interested in the natural world, are fed up with the nonsense coming out of modern physics.
We should be building a new society of naturalists, to discuss ideas that make sense.
Kaku was born in San Jose, California, to second-generation Japanese-American parents. He might have a Japanese name, but he is NOT Japanese.
can someone please explain to me the hypothesis that stars are made of liquid and not gas? I tried researching it and found nothing. The gas and gravity explanation makes sense to me am I missing something?
certainly plasma
9:15 Mucho Kuku is a very poor scientist but a moderately decent scifi author who, by calling it futurism (wild guesses about the future), sells his speculative scifi with no character or story arcs as nonfiction.
Exactly!! He's a very dull version of Carl Sagan.. who apparently didn't do any science, just moderated 'working groups' who did real science. Every person who graduates with a bs degree should be required to put in at least 10 years employed outside Academia in the 'real world' where you have to Produce the work you were hired to do. Only after a proven Practical Work Resumé should they be allowed to pontificate at the Masters level. Then go back out there for another 10 years before coming back for a phd. Goes for ALL degrees in all college programs.
@@sandrabailey3966 "I've worked in the private sector. They expect results." -Dan Aykroyd as Ray Stanz in *Ghostbusters*
The collider method is violence. Please keep that in mind. Its brute force isn’t exactly taking atomic nucleus apart, but more like smashing or shooting it into pieces. Therefore, its results will likely be fragments of elementary particles rather than the elementary particles themselves. At least, it is inaccurate or even dishonest, unintentionally, of course, whether the they are talking about reality or their wishful thinking, a dream, or lying unconsciously, such as sleepwalking.
@@ZeroOskul Good observation and excellent quote.
i hate mitchiu caca.....
Good questions. I have long wondered why the Doppler Effect is the only possible explanation for the red shift.
Look into Halton Arp.
Particle physics is like smashing repeated wine glasses to find stems and bases and then claiming something new.
The compartmentalization at LHC is just begging for an inner circle to cook up positive results too
If the results found there where truly fundamental, we would see independent replication by other huge nations like China, the US or Japan or maybe even India. Jet for some reason none really bothers.
I love your style, the world nowadays is getting more and more shady and less reliable
'Epicycles...' at 25:04. Did you notice the seconds of silence before everyone burst into laughter. Funny... and true. Thanks Alexander. I'm rereading your book, Einstein's Lost Key, digesting the work of Dicke. Interesting, and I like that someone questioned General Relativity. What I find odd is that no one seems to have identified the oddity that the universe somehow knew it was going to require such complexity, at the origin.
Yes I did. Was a funny moment.
The complexity is created by mankind and a lot of physicists seem to revel in it.
However the basics must be unbelievably simple.
And the conclusions inevitable.
@@janhemmer8181 No. It is well known in modern mathematics that in fact most of the questions out there don't have a solution, which can be encompassed by a relatively limited tool such as our mind. Non analytic functions are all over the place. Badly adjusted inverse problems with inherent instabilities are all over the place. Undecidability theorems are all over the place. And then add a plenty of unsolved fundamental questions on which whole disciplines are built in to the mix.
It's not accidental, that we see already since at least two or maybe even three generations the stagnation of fundamental sciences. In my opinion this is one of the reasons more and more of science is drifting in to the semi-religious obscure. If you can't provide real results under pressure, you start to try to BS your way out. Fundamental human nature applies to everyone: scientist too.
@@rosomak8244and yet we see structure and order despite all the chaos we clutter ourselves with. Even black holes have their purpose. I agree with the above comment. The basics must be very simple.
The standard model cannot explain 96% of the matter and energy in the universe and yet is regarded as the most successful theory ever. Why?
Because it is a religion and not a science. Whenever you reject the quackery, you can expect the "you just do not understand" response posited by anyone whom has just observed someone rejecting their religion.
Because it explains/predicys most of the physics experiments we can do in labs.
@@tictacX1 Ok, but there's a lot more to the universe than what goes on in the labs.
@@tictacX1 it doesn't, look into the NIST spectra, they don't remotely compare with the spectra of the Sun let alone the moon
@@tictacX1 "Because it explains/predicys most of the physics experiments we can do in labs."
Not really. "lepton universality", "electroweak monopole', etc
I have doubts that quarks exists as described in the standard model. Probably also no such think as the Gluon, Z & W Boson's. Data from collider experiments isn't conclusive enough to prove it.
instead of an new accelerator, in my opinion, we should verify the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum theory, i.e. study the entaglement for larger masses and their gravitational behavior, check whether randomness really exists - try to check the repetition of physical experiments s on a very small scale etc
Oh No!! Not being able to REPEAT the Results!! Not Checking Your Work!! Not Proof Reading the Math Used?? Not making sure they aren't pulling another 'Hocky Stick' garbage math formula like the one that started the Global Warming Political Gold Mine. Don't Say you don't TRUST them.. lol
Pilot wave is more interesting.
A side thought, related though to your subject: more ought to be done on availability (sharing) of original research data: most often they are not published. More also on detailed reporting of details of experimental procedures so it is easier to repeat them. More on detailed description of computer simulations - mostly it is not possible to repeat them due to the lack of these details (authors are often not even aware that some details play a huge role)
@@AroundPhysics yeah like the metrology labs should release their data about the physical constants. They are constant, right?
@Zbigniew Koziol worked with research scientists while they tried to organize their work in a presentable form for lectures, presentations to groups, and publications. Original data usually isn't collected in a way that can be included in a published article. Too bulky. Nor do most scientists have any understanding of basic computer programs. They turn over data to the IT folks and wait. Particularly in Physics. Renaissance Minds are extremely Rare.
One would think you need smaller particles to find successively smaller particles but no, they just want to use electrons. This seems to be one key problem. They are hung up on electron particle accelerators. If you think quarks exist, then you need a quark accelerator to make smaller particles, not a bigger electron accelerator. And if you cannot make quarks, you have a problem doing anything smaller. That is, you have to stairstep using each smaller particle to find the next level. They don't do this presumably because they have a problem with quarks, like making a kilo to study.
I love you brother Alexander this is good work you do.
This is hugely important and absolutely overdue analysis. - It's getting so embarrassing, that the opposition finally takes ground.
Thanks for the video. When the great reset happens you will get your bank account frozen for mocking them
Thank you Alexander for calling out these car salesmen.
😮
IS your premise that we should stop doing nuclear physics?
Wow! You have no idea how much I've enjoyed this, you are a breath of fresh air in the science landscape, and I'm sure you are considered an heretic by academia, which for me is always a sign of someone being a step ahead. I'm not a physicist by the way, I'm a self taught phylosoper and researcher on the origins of civilization, I'm a true skeptic, meaning I question everything and I'm ready to accept as much, as opposed to the cult of skepticism led by people like Shermer that questions anything that isn't part of the consensus, and accepts anything as long as it's part of the consensus.
I loved every point you made here, it is pure common sense, everything you say I've said myself, and the usual response is that I don't understand physics and I should get a PhD before opening my mouth, a fantastic argument, that in real life would make having any conversation impossible, I mean, can we talk about cars without being mechanics? Can we talk about music without being musicians?
Anyhow, I'm very happy I've found your channel, thank you for the great content and the honest approach to science.
"Nevermind that I'm basically talking gibberish, I'm a smart man so give me money"
It's not gibberish just because you don't understand it.
@@anderslarsen4412 What he says is easy to understand, in contrast to particle physics. That is why people who are not able to understand physics but want to be smart listen to that bs
long ago I played golf with the CEO of a company that received mega-sized contracts from the US govt on scientific and defense projects, so I asked him about the SSC (to be built in Texas long ago) and assumed he'd be very sympathetic and enthusiastic about its construction. He laughed and said "welfare for the over-educated". I was younger and naïve at the time, but now I understand.
And then all the money and worlds scientist went to EU. Is that a win?
this "no" decision would have been a win if gvt had put the money into a revised ORNL Thoruim-MoltenSaltReactor project (now actually Shanghai grabbed the baton; see GordonMcDowell's RUclipss).
A high temperature MSR couldn't just produce Hydrogen (cheaply) and electricity, it could supply process heat to refineries, chemical industry, and cement ovens! With that source of heat available today (not in 30 years) it would be economical to extract tar sands now and then in 30 years to do CO2 capture and make high quality, sulfur-free diesel and gas from H2CO3 and CO2.
I live near a well known taxpayer funded national lab - his description was dead on LOL!
We have a giant, high powered particle collider above our heads beyond the upper atmosphere. Why don't they utilize that for their arcane, vanity projects?
Yes, space based detectors would be great.
what are you talking about. Elaborate.
Mr. Unzicker you have a sense of humor like the great german-american actor Christopher Waltz!! i just came across your channel and am really enjoying the content
I enjoyed so much watching this.
Thank you for explaining why the two teams found different energy levels. Then even worse it turned out the two teams did communicate. Yet these things were waved off and the discovery was announced. So we are to understand that lack of rigor was allowed because their funding was at stake.
6:50 wow, I think he's literally wrong.
I would not give him a passing grade if that was a presentation in my class.
"Please! We just need another €400 billion for a new collider which is fast enough to open the bottomless pit".
I did not realize that so many used car salespeople had Ph.D.’s.
My oppositional defiance disorder is tickled.
We live in a world where morons with courage get away with this .
These guys should be rated as entertainment.
Great information and truth about the ridiculousness of these type of projects given the expense involved but 10 to 1 it'll go through
Hi Jon s. I haven’t got even a subscription to ‘Owl’ magazine to speak to my qualifications to discuss the substance of this RUclips matter of importance, but I just like to pose the question here for consideration of other better trained minds;
So they keep building these things, and creating all this justification in the public domain. When no real public support is probably necessary to secure the funding. But is there any other potential or actual use these colliders can be directly used for or maybe adapted to perform that would help clarify why ‘we’ need to produce more of them??
The posting here provided is of course very important to debunk the premise that we need them, but I’m just wondering if it is about more than just career advancing prestige or money to those groups who supply parts and do the build and operate tasks.
They got that basketball spinning on one finger but all we are seeing is a blurry image of the surface not the mechanics (no pun intended?) of how this is possible.
Posted day 3/23 from Jen in Canada
That dark matter is unfalsifiable needs to be shouted regularly. That the physicists sound like the very worst new age gurus should be an embarrassment. But they need money for their next toy, so shame is something a salesman has no time for.
Imagine brazenly postulating an entity and defining it as undetectable, and then saying that's science.
That's like me not understanding how a car engine starts, so I postulate car starting pixies, oh but you know, they're undetectable, but you can detect their effects, the fact that the car engine is starting.
@@cunjoz in college when I first learned of "dark energy" I asked how well will this theory go over if they called it angels. At that point I knew they were just making it all up.
@@loulasher holy shit i just remembered that the medieval scholastics thought that angels are responsible for the movement of the heavenly bodies. just as valid as dark matter/energy
@@cunjoz right!?!? It's like we just replaced one vocabulary with another. When I was younger I read a bit of Aristotle and then some Plato. They used what they had to reason out a lot. While there are some glaring errors (lack of a scientific method or use of experiments being not the only problems) they and the later stoics were certainly onto something, as were the medieval scholastics who, in counting angels on pins or (better) pondering first causes and thinking teliologically, were dealing with fundamental things as best they could. I just don't like dismissing great minds from the past like we're smarter just because there's more data now as if there's also not more bs (let alone nominalism and subjectivism) to shift through also. Especially in seeing things teliologically, it's a more formal, logical, and better version of the new age "we're all connected maaannnn, you can't seperate cause from effect or matter from empty space. Like where do you end and I begin" nonsense.
@@loulasher of course. they worked within their framework and they did their best.
Can't we learn how to build smaller and more powerful colliders?
I recall a quote from somewhere: "If giving the correct answer risks loosing your funding, some other answer is often utilized" (dont remember the exact quote)
It's hard to make someone understand something when their job depends on them not understanding it.
@@aretwodeetoo1181 Thank you, that is the quote. Do you know where it comes from?
@@jonorgames6596 That's how I've heard it. Don't know if it's a quote.
That's how I feel about contemporary physics - it's all just fantasy land.
Wonderful video. I would say that all people involved in physics should read two books: On The Division of Nature by John Scottus Eriugena and A Theory of Natural Philosophy by Roger Boscovich. The former will show them how to use logic and the apophatic method; the latter shows a completely different way to look at the interactions of particles or fields, whichever you feel makes up the material Universe. I have only read Part 1 of The Theory of Natural Philosophy, which covers his theory completely, but it made me rethink all that I know about physical interactions. Fair warning, neither book is a quick read, both are highly intelligent and released in the 9th and 18th centuries, respectively.
By the way, I have read and love the Higgs Fake and Bankrupting Physics, both wonderful books to read.
Check please my comment above, I think you will find some similar that you says. Best wishes!
Boscovish's book is the one Nikola Tesla is reading in the photograph of him in his chair in front of his flat circular coil.
To use logic you first have to know it. For a brief and accessible introduction I would rather recommend Kuratowski "The Set Theory".
😂 LOLhaha aH aha haHL
Thank you for your honesty, I've been arguing this for years.
Great channel. Thats science, challenge the mainstream ideias.
They will continue down this path, because the alternative is to admit that they've been going down a wrong road for 100 years or more.
Also once you get away from particles and into ether physics, you have to start dealing with things that atheists hate such as "consciousness" and "god" etc
I think you're completely right. Thank you for your comment.
Personally tho I prefer the term firmament to ether, but, eh, "tomāto, tomâto"
cheers
Particle physics today is as real as that picture of the Japanese presenter shaking hands with Albert Einstein.
Both are indicative that a certain hair style should be understood to be as a warning sign for narcissism.
Yeah thats why it makes all those accurate and confirmed predictions huh. You guys are hilarious
@@numberonedad "All those" is a very unscientific number.
@@gastronic what's unscientific is pretending my word choice has something to do with the veracity of particle physics. you just haven't done the reading, is the truth!
@@numberonedad Fact is (never mind your subjective truth), brother Number, there can be many accurate predictions of very little importance. I'm sure Sabine has done all the reading, and she seems to agree with me. 🙏
ruclips.net/video/lu4mH3Hmw2o/видео.html
It's so interesting to see physicists disagreeing with each other on the cutting edge of high-level knowledge. But it's easy to see human nature involved in getting grant money by many of the same people. Thank you, professor. Quite entertaining.
Glad you liked it. I am Dr., not Prof. btw.
@@TheMachian The irony is I can make energy more efficiently than a nuclear power plant using Extremely high decibels from a sound driver...
@@TheMachian professor of 'neuroscience' by the way, which... doesn't have much of a connection to theoretical physics. I wonder how much of this you actually understand...?
Its like a religious orthodoxy...thank you for challenging this.
Is it now? It is more akin to the papacy of the reformation. all about the money.
This vieo gave me a good laugh ! Great job Herr Unziker !
Considering that we're not even close to getting Fusion power to work, there's obviously no practical benefit to understanding reactions orders of magnitude more powerful.
Hi, I remember the hype related to the LHC years ago, and one of the examples that was repeated in media over and over and over again was that the science behind LHC (or particle physics) is what enabled the development of MRI machines that save thousands of lives. Now, you pointed here out that particle physicist tend to presents results from other fields as their own (or at least, being enabled by their research), so I was wondering, was collider science crucial to the development of MRI, or is just standard physics already covered by research in other fields?
It is propaganda that colliders enabled MRI. If ever, the contributed to the technique of generating strong magnetic fields.
@Unzicker's Real Physics Thank you for your reply. Related to strong magnets, I see that more as an engineering challenge, in the realm of applied science; even if strong electromagnets were first designed for a colider, it's a bit disingenuous for them to claim the MRI for their field.
MRI pioneer Raymond Damadian was a 6 literal day creationist , weird huh
The part when Michio Kaku said something like “We’ll find out what happened before Genesis 1 verse 1” was interesting. I’m curious if he’s a Christian or if he’s trying not to alienate the theists and keep those avenues open for possible future donations.
There is a large amount of religious conspiracy theory media online about CERN raising the devil and the people who work there are worshipping him, there’s weird satanic iconography everywhere and other such ridiculous nonsense. I’d bet he’s aware of that narrative being pretty common and was throwing a little Genesis name drop in there for the theists. Holding out an olive branch so to speak
He's on one end of the belief chain, and poking at those at the other end. The truth lies in the middle. Both extremes are lost in their convictions.
I don't think it was so meticulously thought out. IMO, he didn't have a strategy in mind, he was just trying to sound grandiose.
Never enough iterations of Michio Kaku's signature phrase, "that's right".
Appearing confident is what he sells. That and the silly hair style.
It's all about getting money for your projects that your interested in and keeps you employed.
Which book of his was it? Years ago I was watching an interview between David Berlinski and Peter Robinson discussing this very topic: the scientific overreach at public expense, and the example given was yet-another billion dollar super collider. I could go on and try to pull up some pithy quotes of Berlinski, and Berlinski quotes are the pithiest quotes possible, but the answer is always the same: 'It's just so damned interesting [to us] another ten billion dollars please.'
There's popular science and there's science fiction. And here's some fictional science for the sake of politics. It is cringe material for anyone with the slightest understanding, but those are not the audience of Murayama and Kaku.
Footnote: THANKS for this item. Appreciate what you did. Keep up the good work! Wissenschafts Filosofie at its best. Danke aus Holland.
Excellent presentation. Sanity is in short supply these days
From the outside looking in, you appear to be saying that particle physics is the equivalent of throwing bones or reading tea leaves.
Reading tea leaves is a lot less expensive.
What is the end goal of particle physics? Breaking things into smaller particles doesn't ultimately solve the problem of what particles are made of which presumably must be some inherent property of quantum space.
Why are physicist worried about tax payer money? a new collider would not even be 1% of the national budget contributing nations. Not even 1% of 1% over the 10 or 15 years it would need to be built. We spent more money on pencils and laptops for the bureaucracy. I would be happier spending the money on colliders, telescopes, etc.
Anything with Brian Cox involved with it... I automatically know it's Total bullshit. Dude believes in time travel for ducks sake.
THANK YOU! I've been saying this forever. I don't even believe they really found the Higgs. They just needed to justify their budget
Of course they didn't. Weve known for over a century that Gravity doesn't exist as a force! Like friction its a phenomenon. Its the result of change in momentum being that momentum is time. ie on earth we are constantly accelerating through time.
There is no higgs boson. What they detect and conclude to be a higgs boson is just a resonance.
Pitying all of you unqualified, uneducated, clueless, envious dullards trying to argue how physics is wrong without having the necessary toolsets to even apply physical or mathematical reasoning to understand the concepts. Your nonsense is based on layman explanations of the subjects, made by youtubers who live on your envy that keeps you coming to watch his videos. You’re arguing against strawmen.
@@RP-ch8yn All you have is insults. Meaning you are less than nothing. But your hubris shone through, backed by nothing. That is so terribly sad.
We are told that the Higgs is metastable, and that at some energy level the universe tips over and the laws of physics change. At what energy level is that? By their calculations will that be achievable with the next collider upgrade?
Okay, so basically particle physics is nonsense and should not be investigated? Because what is the alternative?
The way it is done since 1930 is a dead end. I have constructive proposals in my book "Higgs Hake". Repeat key experiemnts permanently, clear documentation, put all the old data on the web, etc.